Seatrade-Maritime: US hubris risks shipping’s regulatory consensus and stability

Diplomacy, compromise and scientific, evidence-based decision making have all been thrown out of the window as the US seeks to permanently derail international shipping’s climate ambitions.

There is nothing subtle about the Trump administration’s negotiating tactics and its more akin to rampant school playground bullying writ large on a global scale, if the reports on the edges of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) are to be believed.

US and Saudi opposition reportedly ensured that the approval of the NZF was paused at last October’s Extraordinary Session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

A resumption of the considerations around the NZF will take place at the Extraordinary Session, now entitled MEPC/ES.2, a five-day meeting currently due start on 30 November this year.

Reversing a decade of gains

However, the US delegation, presumably ordered by Donald Trump himself, is looking to cancel MEPC/ES.2 and reverse any IMO gains on decarbonisation over the past decade or more, putting at risk the well-being of future generations across the globe, for many years to come.

Not that shipping is solely responsible for climate change, but as many have said, and continue to say, all industries must play their part in fighting the greatest threat to humanity ever seen.

Following America’s withdrawal from 66 international organisations, including climate and human rights organisations, in January this year, citing that they no longer serve American interests, the administration is continuing its attempts to undermine climate protection measures.

In its latest assault the US administration is looking to overturn plans, that have more than a decade in the making, to achieve cleaner shipping. It could be seen as the last desperate move of an administration that could be impotent after its mid-term elections, set for early November.

April’s MEPC must hold out against strong arm opposition tactics in their bid to deliver their coup de grace on shipping’s climate change obligations.

Lack of consensus 

The US delegation at the IMO argues that there is no consensus within the maritime sector for the NZF. And this is true, but there was a compromise deal agreed at MEPC83, which was seen as a way forward for the industry.

Instead of embracing this compromise the US and its allies have sought to collapse the agreed deal in favour of those vested interests embodied by the fossil fuel producing countries and supported by poorer nations that cannot resist threats of financial penalties, that could be imposed if they oppose the US-led attacks on the NZF.

In addition, the US demands: “Regional schemes such as the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) must be phased out to avoid duplicative frameworks.”

EU maritime regulations, including the ETS and FuelEU, were already due to be replaced by the IMO’s global regulation. A failure to endorse the NZF will mean that the EU rules will remain, while other regional regulations will proliferate. Why? Because there is no consensus for a patchwork of regional emissions regulations that will irrationally complicate the operation of vessels.

No penalties for GHG emissions

According to the US view there should be no penalties for GHG emissions and no limitations on fuel types, including “conventional crude or diesel, LNG, nuclear, biomass-based fuels,” nor will the US, “Tolerate an IMO-administered fund of any kind built on revenues from a global carbon tax or penalizing mechanism.”

In effect the US would like to return to burning as much fossil fuel as possible, in line with its view that the Paris agreement is flawed, since climate change is a hoax, as the President has said on several occasions.

Scientific evidence, even that produced by climate deniers such as ExxonMobil back in the 1970s, has shown that the man-made global warming is and will continue to heat the planet destroying the very environment and eco-systems that support all life on Earth.

“It is the view of the United States that MEPC 84 can recognize by consensus that the most appropriate and constructive path forward is to end consideration of the flawed IMO Net-Zero Framework proposal and, instead, devote its attention to considering alternative proposals in line with the foregoing policy positions.”

Those policy positions are an effective carte blanche to burn GHG fuels without penalties for the foreseeable future.

If President Trump is looking for a consensus, then it should start with American people. As far as the NZF is concerned the only other submission from the American people was by the NGO Pacific Environment (PE).

Carbon pricing scheme 

They argue that the NZF offers, “urgently needed progress towards decarbonizing the shipping sector through a global fuel standard and a carbon pricing scheme.”

Moreover, PE pointed out: “Revenues from the carbon pricing scheme could provide critical funds to support developing countries with decarbonization and promote a just and equitable transition.”

In its submission to MEPC84 PE reminds the industry and member states of the advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), issued in July and May 2025, respectively, regarding climate change and the obligations of all member states under numerous multilateral instruments and interrelated sources of international law.

Furthermore, PE noted the advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued on 21 May 2024 that outlines the legal obligations of the maritime sector.

This includes the Paris Agreement, and, “Customary international law: this is binding upon all States, regardless of their participation, or lack thereof, in any treaties or international negotiations. Treaty and custom inform each other; therefore all States are recommended to comply with the Paris Agreement to demonstrate compliance with customary international law.”

Signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) requires the protection and preservation of the marine environment. 

PE finally points out that International human rights law protects individuals and communities by stipulating: “A healthy environment is a human right and underpins the enjoyment of many other rights. States must take measures to protect the climate and environment to guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights, which includes the regulation of private actors.”

As such, failure to agree the NZF could lead to more conflict in the courts as human rights and environmental organisations launch legal challenges should the US and its followers fail to protect the oceans and atmosphere.

A vote for the US-led action against the NZF is essentially voting for more regulation but fragmented globally; higher shipping costs; and more conflict through the courts.

It is a path that offers no consensus and no hope of stability. It is a methodology and framework that the world has seen applied since January 2025. It has brought neither prosperity, justice, or solutions to the pressing global issues faced by us all.